ArticleHealth services research2009
Experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded projects that implemented practices for safer patient care.
Article in Health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the AHRQ patient safety initiative: framework and approach.Health services research · 2009Article
- Assessment of contributions to patient safety knowledge by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded patient safety projects.Health services research · 2009Article
- Evaluation of the AHRQ patient safety initiative: synthesis of findings.Health services research · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesize lessons learned from the experiences of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded patient safety projects in implementing safe practices. DATA SOURCES: Self-reported data from individual and group interviews with Original, Challenge, and Partnerships in Implementing Patient Safety (PIPS) grantees, from 2003 to 2006. STUDY
designInterviews with three grantee groups (n=60 total) implementing safe practice projects, with comparisons on factors influencing project implementation and sustainability. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured protocols contained open-ended questions on lessons learned and more structured questions on factors associated with project implementation and sustainability. PRINCIPAL
findingsThe grantees shared common experiences, frequently identifying lessons learned regarding structural components needing to be in place before implementation, components of the implementation process, components of interventions' results needed for sustainability, changes in timelines or activities, unanticipated issues, and staff acceptance/adoption. Also, fewer Original grants had many of the factors related project to implementation/sustainability than the PIPS or Challenge grantees had.
conclusionsAlthough much of what was reported seemed like common sense, surprisingly few projects actually planned for or expected many of the barriers or facilitators they experienced during their project implementation. Others implementing practice improvements likely will share the experiences and issues identified by these implementation projects and can learn from their lessons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.